Jump to content


Photo

Death Before Adam's Sin


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#61 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 July 2011 - 02:46 PM

Well that would be the YE view!

I very much dislike it when someone holds staunchly to a view that isn't proven biblically or otherwise. I now try not to hold a view if it isn't clear. I always leave the disclaimer "we really don't know for sure".


That's good, leaving the door open for possibility makes it to where when other evidence shows up, you give everything a fair shake.

#62 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 15 July 2011 - 04:26 PM

I don't think that this indicates that day 7 as described in Genesis was not a literal 24 hour day, but rather, that it "represents" an eternal day.

Man often uses non-existant "symbolic" things to illustrate "literal" existing things.

I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that God does things the oposite way around.
He always seems to use "literal" things to illustrate "spiritual" (symbolic) things.

For example, he instructed Solomon to build a literal temple, which we now know illustrates a spiritual temple. It was a shadow of what would come.

I think that using something "symbolic", such as a non-existent 24 hour day in order to symbolize something literal (billions of years) just goes against the grain of scripture. It is casting the "shadow" in the wrong direction - not pointing towards what would come, but to what was!!!

It seems like prophecy ... turned around..


Good observation. God has shown he does love to use symbolism, its an interesting idea you've raised that I think is a reasonable possibility.

Fred

#63 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:02 PM

JWs say that this means that the seventh day is ongoing... and we are still in it.

Hebrews 4:3For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

“As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest,’”

although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5And again in this passage he said,

“They shall not enter my rest.”

6Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience,



I don't think that this indicates that day 7 as described in Genesis was not a literal 24 hour day, but rather, that it "represents" an eternal day.

Man often uses non-existant "symbolic" things to illustrate "literal" existing things.

I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that God does things the oposite way around.
He always seems to use "literal" things to illustrate "spiritual" (symbolic) things.

For example, he instructed Solomon to build a literal temple, which we now know illustrates a spiritual temple. It was a shadow of what would come.

I think that using something "symbolic", such as a non-existent 24 hour day in order to symbolize something literal (billions of years) just goes against the grain of scripture. It is casting the "shadow" in the wrong direction - not pointing towards what would come, but to what was!!!

It seems like prophecy ... turned around..

I think that explanation really fits that scripture in Hebrews. What do you all think?


Whenever that's done, it's people trying to make the Bible conform to their view or supposed evidence of age.

I think that each day being 7,000 years old was decided on because of their idea of the timing of Christ's return and armageddon. Just a guess though, I haven't looked into it.

#64 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 22 July 2011 - 08:18 AM

I hope you see the point. There is no possible way, grammatically, to get anything but a literal day out of this passage. If there is something more than a literal day here, than God is bad at grammar. God was especially redundant in these passages, He wanted there to be no question that his creation transpired in a literal 6 days. For one last added emphasis, He repeats this in Exodus 20:11 - For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

The only place in all of literature throughout the world that the context of the word day is not universally accepted can only be found in Genesis chapter 1 of the Bible. This makes perfect sense once we recognize the motive behind it - get people to doubt the rest of the Bible. If you can't trust clear grammar and history right out of the gate, why trust it the rest of the way through the book? If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do? (Psalms 11:3)

Fred

Amen!

If we don't trust God's word to be literal, then everything can be clouded. When I take a literal view, the Word opens up to me. Christ is my only mediator. Christ took Stephen's spirit when he asked him to. I can be a child of God. Deciding that verses here and there were symbolic and didn't really mean what they say kept these things from me. A wonderful Christian woman showed me that Christ wants us to attain salvation. He doesn't want it to be difficult.

God is not of confusion, but of peace.


#65 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 01 August 2011 - 01:45 PM

I had another thought/question on the topic of animal death while listening to Fred and Bob talk on one of their recent Real Science Fridays.

The question was "why would God give animals sharp teeth and claws and such if He didn't want animals killing each other from the beginning?"

The answer was that in God's wisdom, he supplied animals with the tools necessary as sort of a back up plan, knowing that things would go south.

That doesn't seem wise to me.

If God knew that man would start killing each other after the fall, would He create us with machine guns for arms?

If God was against animals killing each other, why would he equip them with the tools to do it after the fall?

It seems that if God didn't initially create sharks with razor sharp teeth or eagles with razor sharp talons that there would be a whole lot less animal death after the fall. If they don't have the tools to kill, how would they do it? A lion might be out of harmony with a lamb after the fall, but if it didn't have sharp claws and teeth it wouldn't have such an easy time shredding the lamb.

In a similar vein, do you think animal death is immoral? We know that humans killing humans is immoral. Nowhere does the Bible hint that animals killing animals is immoral. God seems to be proud of the hunting prowess of his creatures. He doesn't say the same thing about murder. So, if animals killing animals is not immoral, you could still have a sinless world pre-fall with animal death. It might make you squeamish, but that's about it.

#66 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:12 PM

Nowhere does the Bible hint that animals killing animals is immoral. God seems to be proud of the hunting prowess of his creatures. He doesn't say the same thing about murder. So, if animals killing animals is not immoral, you could still have a sinless world pre-fall with animal death. It might make you squeamish, but that's about it.

I agree with that, but what of this scripture?

Isaiah 11:7-9
King James Version (KJV)

7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

9They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

It seems that in this scripture God is expressing displeasure of animals that hunt.

#67 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 01 August 2011 - 06:38 PM

I agree with that, but what of this scripture?

Isaiah 11:7-9
King James Version (KJV)

7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

9They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

It seems that in this scripture God is expressing displeasure of animals that hunt.


Good point.

For one, I don't think one can rightly assume that this was the condition of the original creation. God isn't going to restore the earth to the garden of Eden conditions - the Garden was just a shadow of the glory of the new creation.

There may not be a need for food in the new creation - that could answer why animals won't be eating other animals.
This language could also be symbolic of the peace and security in the new creation. Wildlife was often symbolically used of danger. The punishments described by God's prophets often included imagery of wild animals attacking. That's what happened when Adam surrendered his authority.

It's interesting that God says the reason wildlife will get along is that the "whole earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord." Do we think this means that animals will have some revelation of who God is and not want to eat other animals anymore? There seems to be generous use of symbolic language here. Will there really be nursing children in the new creation? There won't be any marriage. I really don't think there will be any procreation in the new creation. Even if there were children in the new creation (which I very much doubt), why would they be putting their hands in snake holes?

#68 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 22 July 2012 - 03:57 PM

Did anybody get a chance to read this article? http://www.livescien...y-survival.html

Basically, adding a predator to their experimental situation allowed both species of weevils to survive. When it was just the two harmless vegetarian weevil species, one species would always out-compete the other and one would go extinct. Diversity was maintained by adding a predator species.

This study fits well with my idea of pre-fall predators, but I wonder how somebody else would respond to it.

Would you say that pre-fall creatures had some sort of built in sense of "sharing" so that no species would get out-competed for resources?

#69 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:43 AM

Hi, Air-run.

You asked about eagle talons as if they could be used for picking apples. Actually, you would have to look at eagles before the flood. Don't all birds in the fossil record have peg like teeth? Those teeth would have been used for perforating leafy plant matter. If they were used for a carnivorous diet, wouldn't they be sharp and serrated?

"The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds have unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots."

If God commanded death and suffering, then it makes sense that he would need tools to do it with. So I believe that there was an alteration of creation event after the fall "Thorns and Thistles", which brought about predatory changes such as basking sharks being changed into great whites.

I also don't believe that there was a literal tree of life. I believe that Adam ate from the fruit of sin, which was unbelief. The bible uses figurative terms about sin such as "Beware of the leaven of the pharisees". It is also clear that only sin leads to death and not the fruits that we eat.



Enjoy.

#70 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:13 PM

I also don't believe that there was a literal tree of life. I believe that Adam ate from the fruit of sin, which was unbelief. The bible uses figurative terms about sin such as "Beware of the leaven of the pharisees". It is also clear that only sin leads to death and not the fruits that we eat.


I think you are getting things mixed up a bit. God had commanded that Adam not eat of the tree of knowledge. The tree of life was the reason that God kicked Adam out of of the garden after he had sinned.

Disobeying any of God's commands is sin by definition, so I don't see eating fruit specifically as sin until God forbids it, but it certainly was a sin after He did. It does not seem illogical to me that it be either literal or figurative.

#71 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 29 July 2012 - 11:35 PM

So I believe that there was an alteration of creation event after the fall "Thorns and Thistles", which brought about predatory changes such as basking sharks being changed into great whites.


I've heard that sentiment before.

My problem with that idea is that if predatory habits were a negative consequence of the fall, why did God alter the DNA of nearly every creature to increase the measure of predatory behavior? This would only add fuel to the fire. Lets say that all the animals were friends before the fall, and after the fall, there was a new level of hostility and fighting among them. Giving these animals sharp teeth and claws only makes the problem worse. If God didn't change basking sharks into great whites then Adam's fall wouldn't have done much to change that part of the oceanic ecosystem. If God hadn't done that, the basking sharks might have been out of harmony with seals, but they wouldn't have the equipment to devour them.

#72 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 August 2012 - 11:11 PM

I've heard that sentiment before.

My problem with that idea is that if predatory habits were a negative consequence of the fall, why did God alter the DNA of nearly every creature to increase the measure of predatory behavior? This would only add fuel to the fire. Lets say that all the animals were friends before the fall, and after the fall, there was a new level of hostility and fighting among them. Giving these animals sharp teeth and claws only makes the problem worse. If God didn't change basking sharks into great whites then Adam's fall wouldn't have done much to change that part of the oceanic ecosystem. If God hadn't done that, the basking sharks might have been out of harmony with seals, but they wouldn't have the equipment to devour them.

Air run, Not really sure of your point. God obviously at one point made carnivores, but it wasn't at creation. It says he gave the vegetation for the animals, and then after the fall, obviously, there were carnivores. I mean he could have done that at any time. It's just a strong possibility that it happened at the fall, because hecame down and did alot of work at that time, including kicking man out of the garden, giving Eve the ability to bear children, etc.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users